SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ
Principal, DM Wims College Of Pharmacy – Appellant
Versus
Admission And Fee Regulatory Committee – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4172 OF 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kurian George Kannanthanam, Tony George Kannanthanam, Alex George (Chamapparayil)
For the Respondents: S. Ganesh, Mary Benjamin

Admissions to pharmacy courses made on or before the university-prescribed cut-off date of 15.09.2019 are valid and must be regularized, as the Pharmacy Act provides the regulatory framework and the Apex Court's stay order is prospective from 25.11.2019, thus not impacting pre-existing valid admissions.

Headnote:The petitioner, a pharmacy college, challenged the first respondent's decision to withhold approval for the admission of two students admitted by the cut-off date of 15.09.2019, as permitted by court orders. The statutory framework governing the admission process for pharmacy courses and the applicability of the All India Council for Technical Education Act were central to the dispute. The court determined that students admitted on or before the cut-off date were entitled to pursue their academic studies, finding that the stay order issued by the Apex Court in a related matter did not affect legitimate admissions made within the prescribed timeline. The court addressed the issue of whether the regulatory cut-off date and subsequent stay orders from the Apex Court precluded the university from regularizing these admissions. Citing ratio decidendi from recent precedent, the court emphasized that the Pharmacy Act, not the AICTE Act, regulates these admissions and that the stay order dated 25.11.2019 only applied to admissions after the specified cut-off date. The court held that the university must register students admitted on or before 15.09.2019. In result, the writ petition is allowed, and the petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of the directions issued in the controlling judgment dated 28.01.2021.

Table of Content
1. the challenge pertains to the non-approval of students admitted by the cut-off date. (Para 1 , 2)
2. admissions made on or before 15.09.2019 are governed by the pharmacy act and are not invalidated by subsequent stay orders. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner filed this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order or direction to quash Ext.P6 in so far as the committee declined to approve the admissions of 2 candidates admitted on 15.09.2019.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to direct the 1st respondent to approve the admissions of the 2 candidates admitted in petitioner’s College on 15.09.2019, de hors Ext.P4.

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to direct the 2nd respondent University to permit the petitioner’s College to upload and register all candidates admitted in 2019, for the ensuing exams as notified in Ext.P15.

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to direct the 2nd respondent to permit all students admitted in petitioner’s College in 2019 including the 2 candidates whose approval has been kept in abeyance by the Committee to appear for the Exams notified as per Ext.P7 and all their subsequent exams”.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent - Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, keeping in abeyance the approval of admission of two candidates in the petitioner’s college during the academic year 2019-20 for B.Pharm and the consequential refusal by the 2nd respondent the Kerala University of Health Sciences (the ‘University’ for short) to permit the students to attend the examination. According to the petitioner, the admission in the petitioner college for B.Pharm for the academic year 2019 -20 was completed on 31.08.2019. By Ext.P1 order dated 27.08.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.A.No.1686 of 2019, this Court extended the time for admission up to 15.09.2019. Consequently, the University issued Ext.P2 circular dated 05.09.2019 notifying the cut-off date of admission for B.Pharm as 15.09.2019. The petitioner was not a party to W.A.No.1686 of 2019, and therefore, was unaware of Ext.P1 order of this Court. On coming to know about Ext.P2 circular of the University, the petitioner filled up two vacancies available as on 31.08.2019 before 15.09.2019. Subsequently, in the writ petitions filed by some Colleges which had not got affiliations, along with the Pharmacy College Management Association, a Division Bench of this Court by Ext.P3 judgment dated 29.10.2019 in W.A.No.2084 of 2019 directed the University to grant affiliation to those Colleges within a week, and the last date of admission was extended by ten days from the date of that judgment. The State Government took the matter in appeal before the Apex court, and by Ext.P4 interim order dated 25.11.2019 in SLP(C) No.40401 of 2019, the Apex Court directed that no student admitted in the light of Ext.P3 judgment, shall be permitted to pursue their studies. Thereafter, by Ext.P5 letter dated 05.12.2019, the University directed the Principals of Pharmacy Colleges to relieve all students admitted after 15.09.2019. The 1st respondent Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, thereafter by Ext.P6 order dated 10.12.2019, approved the admission of all candidates, except the aforesaid two candidates admitted in the petitioner College by 15.09.2019. The University did not permit the registration of the aforesaid two candidates for the 1st semester examination notified by virtue of Ext.P7 notification dated 24.01.2020, stating the reason of Ext.P4 interim order of the Apex Court, which, according to the petitioner, has no bearing on the case of the petitioner. Meanwhile, some other Colleges who had simi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top